Lion of the Blogosphere

Trump’s wire tapping allegations

All I can say is that it better turn out to be true, otherwise Republicans in Congress will turn against him.

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

March 5, 2017 at 11:58 am

Posted in Politics

62 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Meh.


    March 5, 2017 at 12:24 pm

  2. I am going be so pissed if the monkey show GOP can’t ignore the lugenpresse long enough to get anything done.

    Two in the Bush

    March 5, 2017 at 12:47 pm

  3. mikeca is right. It’s been known for months that Trump’s team was under surveillance via FISA.

    For the Left, and Obama spox and the Dems, to deny it now is ludicrous.

    Andrew E.

    March 5, 2017 at 12:58 pm

    • This story broke on Nov 7 2016

      and was widely circulated in left wing websites. And Trump learned about it last week? That doesn’t reflect well on him or his team.

      Peter Akuleyev

      March 5, 2017 at 1:10 pm

      • So what is the standard line, anyway? All the liberals I see are denying that Trump was wire-tapped, and are outraged that he would even dare suggest such a thing.


        March 5, 2017 at 1:23 pm

      • @Peter,

        He didn’t necessarily just learn about it last week. He knew about it all along and was saving it for an opportune time. At least that’s my guess. But we shall see. If the FISA app is found and produced, if it’s proven that the NY Times used this criminally leaked info, it should be a bigger scandal than Watergate. Much bigger.


        March 5, 2017 at 1:25 pm

      • Meh. Trump has impeccable timing with things like this. It’s part of his genius. The fact that this was just sitting out there meant it was a free card Trump could play whenever he deemed it in his best interests.

        Andrew E.

        March 5, 2017 at 1:41 pm

      • in response to Richard’s question, on NeoGaf they are having a hard time getting their story straight but they unanimously agree that this is a good thing for Obama and the Dems because either there was no wiretap, or if there was, then investigating it will prove that Trump really did collude with Russia to undermine American democracy. Not only are they not worried at all, they see it is a win win.

        Otis the Sweaty

        March 5, 2017 at 3:17 pm

      • @Otis,

        Have mikeca explain to the neogaffers that the wiretapping occurred, and it was perfectly legal, called for, ethical and proper.


        March 5, 2017 at 4:29 pm

      • gothamette — not necessarily. There were two surveillance requests, The first was denied. The second was approved for the purpose of checking some kind of banking irregularity. The banking thing was investigated and dismissed. If the surveillance continued after it was dismissed then it was illegal. And I’ve read that it was.


        March 5, 2017 at 7:50 pm

      • they unanimously agree that this is a good thing for Obama and the Dems because either there was no wiretap, or if there was, then investigating it will prove that Trump really did collude with Russia to undermine American democracy. Not only are they not worried at all, they see it is a win win.

        Completely nonsensical.

        If Obama did not wiretap that means they did not suspect anything was wrong with his Russian connections, yet they still made Russia an issue in public during the campaign when they privately knew there was no connection.

        If they did wiretap then they found nothing damning in Trump’s internal campaign communications because if they had found something incriminating they would certainly leaked it to the media to help Hillary.

        The Undiscovered Jew

        March 5, 2017 at 9:35 pm

      • @destructure,

        I was being very very sarcastic. As they say, SDNWOTI.


        March 5, 2017 at 10:34 pm

      • “The banking thing was investigated and dismissed. If the surveillance continued after it was dismissed then it was illegal. And I’ve read that it was.”

        Not only that, but FISA court requests should not be used for banking issues. It’s for national security issues, period.

        We need to see those FISA court applications. (Is that what they are called?)


        March 5, 2017 at 10:36 pm

      • @TuJ,

        Perfect response. Bravo. I’m stealing it.


        March 6, 2017 at 1:15 pm

      • @TuJ,

        Your logical trap was picked up by NatRev’s Andrew McCarthy and is now ricocheting around Twitter.


        March 6, 2017 at 3:31 pm

      • Your logical trap was picked up by NatRev’s Andrew McCarthy and is now ricocheting around Twitter.

        Of course.

        The Undiscovered Jew

        March 6, 2017 at 7:20 pm

    • No, it’s been suspected. It’s been reported. It hasn’t been proven.

      “FISA applications and the evidence garnered from them are classified – i.e., we would not know about any of this unless someone had leaked classified information to the media, a felony.”

      Read the article you linked to. It is larded with “apparently” and “reportedly” and “evidently” and “it appears” because we don’t really know whether this happened. Did you read the article?

      We need to nail down the truth. Did it happen? Let’s see the FISA app, and learn who ordered it.

      Also what’s important is what was done with the info after the wiretaps. The Lawnewz article I linked to deals with that issue. You can get a FISA warrant and do a perfectly legal wiretap, but you can peddle the info like a cheap whore’s ass. I think that’s just what happened. The warrant was legal – unethical but legal – what they did with the info was a scandal.


      March 5, 2017 at 1:22 pm

    • I read the National Review link, and like Benghazi the argument for why it’s bad is too complicated to be politically effective. It doesn’t back up Trump’s tweet, either.

      What it says is that there were two attempts by Obama’s DOJ to surveille Trump’s circle last year. The first, which may have targeted Trump directly, was denied authorization in July. The second, more narrowly tailored, did get a pass a few months later, but its targets were Paul Manafort, Roger Stone and Carter Page, not Trump. Manafort and Stone (not sure about Page) were both gone from the campaign by October, so the insinuation that Obama was Nixonishly eavesdropping on a rival presidential campaign looks strained.


      March 5, 2017 at 1:37 pm

  4. Who exactly is Carter Page and why isn’t the Trump administration doing more to shut him up? He seems to be making tours of various left wing talk shows with the express purpose of appearing foolish and discrediting Trump. He was probably a CIA plant in the first place, and he even admits he has never briefed Trump on any matter of substance, he never met Trump before 2016. Yet now he gets top billing as “former Trump adviser”.

    Peter Akuleyev

    March 5, 2017 at 1:16 pm

    • Corey Lewandowski was being interviewed on Judge Jeanine. He said he had no idea who Carter Page was. He never saw him anywhere in the campaign.


      March 5, 2017 at 2:59 pm

  5. meh. Congressional Republicans would love to turn on Trump already. But they can’t because their primary voters would mutiny. They’ll turn on him if and when that changes. Trump would need a scandal bad enough to make Republican primary voters abandon him. This ain’t it.

    Greg Pandatshang

    March 5, 2017 at 1:32 pm

  6. If Obama had ordered Trump or his campaign staff’s phone tapped without a FISA warrant, that would be a huge scandal, but there is absolutely zero evidence that happened. If it had happened, there would be leaks by now. This is just pure fantasy.

    There clearly was a FBI and CIA investigation of Trump’s links to Russia during the campaign, but there is no evidence that was ordered by Obama. It was based on information turned over to the FBI by a former British intelligence operative.

    It is possible the FBI obtained a FISA warrant to wire tap Trump or his campaign staff. Press leaks indicate the request was turned down by the FISA courts, but it is possible there were multiple requests and some were approved. This would mean that there was enough evidence of foreign influence on the Trump campaign to justify a FISA wire tap. That would be a problem for Trump.

    It is obvious there were wire taps on the Russian officials involved and any Trump staff conversations with Russian officials would have been recorded, as Flynn’s call to the Russian Ambassador was.

    It appears Trump’s tweets were based on an un-sourced Breitbart News story. Trump really has to understand that when the president make accusations, even in a tweet at 3 AM, people take those accusations seriously. Apparently Trump is very angry that the Sessions – Russia connection story has dominated the news cycle for the last few days and pushed praise of his Tuesday speech out of the new cycles.

    Trump needs an enemy to be constantly attacking to blame for his own failures. Since Republicans are now in control of everything, he is struggling to find enemies to attack.

    The US needs a president that can tell the difference between actual information and made up nonsense written to generate clicks online. Trump apparently cannot.


    March 5, 2017 at 2:15 pm

    • You never have anything good to say about Trump. Only Trump could have beaten Hillary (no way Jeb Bush would have won Pennsylvania Michigan Wisconsin), and because Trump won something is finally being done about immigration, and we have a conservative being appointed to the Supreme Court instead of an extreme liberal.

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      March 5, 2017 at 2:18 pm

      • I agree that a President shouldn’t be tweeting at 3 a.m. I think he shouldn’t be tweeting at all. And you’re right about the narrow legality of the FISA warrant – maybe. “This is because FISA court members trust the government is only bringing them surveillance about pending terror attacks or “grave hostile” war-like attacks, as the FISA statute limits itself to. Thus, a FISA application can only be used in very limited circumstances.”

        But that’s not the issue.

        Please see the LawNewz link I provided, twice.

        ” What the law does forbid, under criminal penalty, is the misuse of FISA. ”

        The government fished for a FISA warrant, was denied, succeeded, got info…and peddled it to various news outlets. That’s not criminal? I say it is.


        March 5, 2017 at 2:43 pm

      • Lion, that is a weak response to mikeca. You went to goddamn law school and I do a better job of trying to understand the legal issues here than you do. You are being very lazy. Read the freaking link I provided, TWICE.


        March 5, 2017 at 2:44 pm

      • I rarely have anything good to say about Trump, but I did say a few nice things about he speech Tuesday,

        The president of the US is always going to be harshly criticized by the opposing party. Trump just lashes out with childish and silly verbal attacks when he is criticized. It is almost like Trump thinks the US government is a reality TV show and he is the producer. In a TV show the staff can control what goes on the air, but the WH does not have that kind of control of events.

        The Sessions – Russia scandal is a run of the mill political scandal. If Eric Holder had misled Congress like that during his confirmation hearing, Republicans would have been screaming for him to resign. Trump can either cut Sessions loose or tough it out and take the heat. His supporters would love him for toughing out. He seems to be cracking up under the pressure.


        March 5, 2017 at 3:14 pm

      • Trump is prole, it’s not going to change. Who says a prole can’t be president and can’t look out for the best interests of the country?

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        March 5, 2017 at 3:20 pm

      • MikeCA *is* a liberal.

        Otis the Sweaty

        March 5, 2017 at 3:20 pm

      • No, the president SHOULD be tweeting. I follow Trump on both Twitter and Facebook and this is how I know what he is really up to. Great posts and tweets Mr. President! Keep them up!


        March 5, 2017 at 4:09 pm

      • @mikeca,

        1. So it happened and it was legal.
        2. It’s legal because they got a warrant first. No. Wrong. Let’s see the wording of the request first. If the wording was bullshit, the warrant was bullshit too. I’m not a lawyer, so there must be a better word than bullshit. But it amounts to the same thing: a government out of control using a secret court to spy on political opposition.

        And yes, FISA warrants ARE easy to get. In one of McCarthy’s articles he states that out of 35K requests, the FISA court has denied….12. One of the 12 was Obama’s first request.

        3. It’s illegal to leak the findings.


        March 5, 2017 at 4:14 pm

      • mikeca,

        “If Obama had ordered Trump or his campaign staff’s phone tapped without a FISA warrant, that would be a huge scandal, but there is absolutely zero evidence that happened. If it had happened, there would be leaks by now. This is just pure fantasy.”

        Nah. There would be no leaks. The Left controls the government and it makes sure that their people are in power. There would be no leaks.

        Vox Popoli is covering that lawnewz article gothamette sent.


        March 5, 2017 at 4:24 pm

      • @gothamette

        Apparently all of the reports of requests for FISA warrants trace back to British news sources. The principal one being some publication called Heat Street and an article written by Louise Mensch, a former Tory member of parliament. Her article claims two unnamed sources linked to counter-intelligence confirmed the October 2016 FISA warrant approval. The Washington Post has been trying to get its intelligence sources to confirm this story, and they have not. Presumably the New York Times and other news organizations have been trying to find someone to confirm this story without success. That makes this story extremely sketchy at best.

        James Clapper, the director of national intelligence at the time, flatly denies these stories.

        If Louise Mensch actually had two sources, they were probably from British counter-intelligence, not American intelligence. I’m not sure what kind of legal case you could build against British Intelligence officials.


        March 5, 2017 at 5:19 pm

      • @mikeca,

        Right now, we really don’t know if the wiretapping actually occurred. Ascertaining that is the next turn of the screw.


        March 5, 2017 at 7:30 pm

      • P S – If it did happen, Obama’s gonna have a whole lotta splainin’ to do. If it didn’t, Trump is cooked.


        March 5, 2017 at 7:37 pm

      • “P S – If it did happen, Obama’s gonna have a whole lotta splainin’ to do. If it didn’t, Trump is cooked.”

        There were reports from foreign intelligence services that Russia was offering Trump large sums of money to run for president. While those reports were fantastic sounding, do you really think that US intelligence should not investigate them? If the intelligence reports had been that Russia was offering Hillary Clinton bribes, do you think that should not be investigated either?

        There is no evidence Obama had anything to do with the decision making on whatever investigation there was.

        Why do people think Trump is cooked if this claim is not true? This is no different than all the crazy claims Trump has been making all along, like his was the biggest electoral college victory margin since Reagan. You could Google the facts on that and find out it was false, but he just kept repeating it.

        Nothing bad has really happened yet to the Trump administration. The Sessions scandal is no big deal, but Trump is already losing it. What is Trump going to do when something really bad happens?


        March 5, 2017 at 9:29 pm

      • “Russia was offering Trump large sums of money to run for president.”

        Trump was already a multi-billionaire. I don’t think so.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        March 5, 2017 at 9:40 pm

      • Oh, so now there was wiretapping. OK.

        To answer your question, no, I don’t think that a person running for office, even Hillary Clinton, should be wiretapped using the authority of a FISA court because “foreign intelligence” said that Trump was being bribed by the Russians. It would have to be something a little more substantial than that, which is why I want to see the FISA court applications, both of them.

        “There is no evidence Obama had anything to do with the decision making on whatever investigation there was.”

        LOL, try telling that to a jury. I don’t see why Obama would not have had anything to do with it, since you are saying that the decision was so necessary and called for.

        I have a suggestion. Let’s keep looking and see what turns up, just as the Obama Administration did. If at first you don’t succeed in getting permission to wiretap your opponent, keep submitting applications.


        March 5, 2017 at 10:54 pm

      • BTW, Hillary was being bribed by foreign governments. They were called contributions to the CGI.

        If the wiretaps occurred with a warrant, they were legal. But were they ethical? And what was done with the info after obtaining it is a question.

        Finally, Lion should school us on what the definition of a fishing expedition is. Maybe they honestly had reason to investigate Trump for the specific reason cited. But you can’t turn that into a fishing expedition.

        WikiLeaks has something about how often Obama wiretaps opponents. If I have time I’ll link to it.


        March 6, 2017 at 11:34 am

    • This would mean that there was enough evidence of foreign influence on the Trump campaign to justify a FISA wire tap. That would be a problem for Trump.

      Or that the FISA judges are part and parcel of the cultural elite that despises Trump. Or that FISA warrants are just scandalously easy to obtain.

      The fact is it’s roughly as legitimate as the criticism of Sessions (neither one appears to be a big deal). And if it deflects criticism away from that then it just shows how good Trump is at spin and media manipulation.


      March 5, 2017 at 2:29 pm

      • There were 20,000 FISA warrants granted. Only four were ever denied.

        It’s like Grand Juries. FISA courts will wiretap a ham sandwich.

        What’s truly amazing is Chuck Schumer. He thinks evidence of a wiretap makes it bad news for Trump, you know,!because judges are independently elected.


        March 5, 2017 at 3:04 pm

      • That’s the line on NeoGaf as well. If Obama wiretapped Trump that is *bad* for Trump because it proves Trump was colluding with Russia to undermine US democracy.

        Otis the Sweaty

        March 5, 2017 at 4:24 pm

      • According the Conservative Treehouse, Adm. Mike Rogers, the Director of the NSA, refused to participate in a wiretapping scheme of Trump orchestrated by the FBI and CIA. After turning Trump Tower into a SCIF, Rogers warned Trump about that on Nov. 17.


        March 5, 2017 at 9:05 pm

    • I have no opinion on the “wire tapping” because I haven’t read anything and it seems like a lot of noise so far. But this Mike-ism is silly:

      “There clearly was a FBI and CIA investigation of Trump’s links to Russia during the campaign, but there is no evidence that was ordered by Obama.”

      No evidence it was ordered by Obama? That matters precisely not at all. He was the President. If it happened, it happened under his watch. End of story.

      I agree with what others have said that this is a shot across Obama’s bow as he sets up his “anti White House Black House.” Trump has access to everything now. Ev-er-y-thing. If you don’t think there was massive criminality during the Obama years, then you’re a foolish naif. Trump basically tweeted, “Just try it brah. We got all we need over here to bury you.”


      March 5, 2017 at 7:40 pm

  7. With all this talk about the Russians, there is something missing. What did the Russians do? Can anyone be specific? This is a simple, but very important question. I see the headlines in the news, and it’s all “Trump and Russia” non-stop, but no one ever explains what was done.

    It’s especially wrong for Democrat politicians to throw out words like “collusion”, and then not explain what it was the Russians were supposed to have done. Then it’s just innuendo, and just any means necessary to destroy Trump. Why can’t they just make a simple case? Why is there so much hysteria?


    March 5, 2017 at 5:16 pm

    • They “stole” the election with “fake news.” Duh!

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      March 5, 2017 at 5:24 pm

    • The main allegation is that they hacked the DNC email sever and publicly release the emails to embarass the democrats and the Clinton campaign. That plausibly swung the election. Although it was such a close one that any number of things could have done so.


      March 5, 2017 at 6:09 pm

      • If that’s all the Democrats can come up with, then they have nothing. Besides that, the Russians deny the DNC hack, and WikiLeaks says they did it. Moreover, during the campaign, there was non-stop, massive coverage of every single one of Trump’s mistakes and mis-steps, not to mention the leak of one of Trump’s tax returns from the 1990s, and the videotape with his “colorful” comments about women and the effect of celebrity. Anything negative that could be used against Trump was brought up during the campaign.

        Let’s apply a little reason to the Obama administration. There you have the Fast & Furious scandal; the IRS targeting the Tea Party, Lois Lerner taking the 5th, and all the destroyed hard drives; the Benghazi attack and blaming that on a YouTube video, and all the related lies; and then Hillary Clinton’s secret e-mail server, and everything to do with that. With that in mind, is it so hard to believe that Obama might have found some way, as President, to use the FISA law and the various intelligence agencies to go after Trump during the campaign? That would fit a pattern of behavior of Obama’s entire Presidency, where the bureaucracy and administrative state was used to go after opponents.


        March 5, 2017 at 7:55 pm

      • Yeah, that’s not doing anything very significant; and especially not “stealing the election” or even “interfering” if we are to apply consistent standards across all players.

        Even ignoring the fact that “the Russians did it” is pure conjecture, all that occurred is that true information became public knowledge.

        True information becomes public knowledge all of the time; both purposefully not, through hostile domestic actors and hostile foreign actors.

        True information is true. Known true information improves the signal and thus improves democracy. Moreover, the task of the individual voter, since the inception of democracy, has been to filter information for him or herself toward casting a vote based on his or her individual process of sourcing and filtering true from untrue information.

        Couching the release of false information, let alone true information, as somehow constituting election stealing or interference is to remove voting agency from all voters.

        The Russia interference angle is a pathetic psyop executed through a corrupt media. The only thing that it is further, via undermining the agency of the individual voter, is a threat to a foundational concept of functional democracy.

        Some will have the audacity to make a distinction between domestic opponents releasing true information such as in the case of media’s release of Trump’s access Hollywood tape, and foreign actors releasing true information. It’s a difference without a distinction at this point. At this point, most Americans do not have a greater affinity with domestic forces across the isle than they do with foreign people with the same ideological position. No American Nationalist is going to defend American communists against European Nationalists, hypothetically speaking, and I expect the inverse to also be true.


        March 6, 2017 at 5:50 am

  8. Lion what is your definition of Prole? How is a Billionaire prole? I don’t think that word means what you think it does. Sure Trump is POPULAR, but only the Stupid Party would have a problem with a POPULAR Politician. The New Whigs are dying already. Their outreach to the Loser Party of fraying loons on the Left who are apparently all now entering Psychosis shows what a farce politics has now become.
    If Obama says anything, I believe the opposite. This guy lies like a rug. I don’t even believe his name is Obama. He looks nothing like his alleged baby daddy. Some say he’s Frank Marshall Davis jr., and others say he was sired by a weird cult leader in Indonesia. The woman who died in a plane crash who released his “Birth Certificate” happens to be a member of an Indonesian Cult.
    You know, its all a conspiracy. The nuts are now the people who DON’T believe Conspiracies. The Government REALLY DOES spy on you. The media is always lying and making up stories to fit their narrative. And the two parties are in fact colluding against the Will of the People. Its not Alex Jones, the Truth is In Your Face Now.

    Joshua Sinistar

    March 5, 2017 at 7:07 pm

    • “How is a Billionaire prole?”

      When he eats steak well done, with ketchup.

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      March 5, 2017 at 7:54 pm

      • I had to fetch my own ketchup yesterday for reasons I’ve already discussed. Steak was TOO rare, though; I think they just put some brown food coloring on a raw piece of meat.

        I am half prole.


        March 5, 2017 at 9:03 pm

      • Uh prole is short for Proletariat. Proletariat is an economic class of workers who do not own their own homes and are considered the lower end of the working class. What you are talking about seems more like declasse or boor, which is a term for low class behavior. I’m not sure why or how all of you are using prole as a behavioral category instead of an economic class, but this kind of language drift is why people have a hard time arguing anything anymore. People need to use words according to definitions, and stop aping the Left just making up shit and making words mean anything they want them to be. Its not creative or impressive, its confusing and should remain the purview of illiterate idiots who are rightly criticized for misusing words.

        Joshua Sinistar

        March 6, 2017 at 12:11 am

      • Read Paul Fussell.

    • Obama is an agnostic/atheist transparently masquerading as a Christian, not a crypto-Muslim. As our host has pointed out, he has a strong affinity for Sunni Muslims. He was born in the United States, and his father was Obama, Sr.

      He’s bad enough without us having to make stuff up about him.


      March 5, 2017 at 9:10 pm

  9. Thanks for the Law Newz link gothamette.
    A great find – The article is excellent!

    Here’s just some of the good stuff:

    “Out of 35,000+ requests for surveillance, the FISA court has only ever rejected a whopping 12. Apparently, according to published reports, you can add one more to that — even the FISA court first rejected Obama’s request to spy on Trump’s team under the guise of an investigation into foreign agents of a pending war attack, intelligence agents apparently returned to the court, where, it is my assumption, that they did not disclose or divulge all material facts to the court when seeking the surveillance the second time around, some of which they would later wrongfully disseminate and distribute to the public. By itself, misuse of FISA procedures to obtain surveillance is itself, a crime.

    This raises the second problem: Obama’s team submission of an affidavit to to the FISA court. An application for a warrant of any kind requires an affidavit, and that affidavit may not omit material factors. A fact is “material” if it could have the possible impact of impacting the judicial officer deciding whether to authorize the warrant. Such affidavits are the most carefully drawn up, reviewed, and approved affidavits of law enforcement in our system precisely because they must be fully-disclosing, forthcoming, and include any information a judge must know to decide whether to allow our government to spy on its own. My assumption would be that intelligence officials were trying to investigate hacking of DNC which is not even a FISA covered crime, so therefore serious questions arise about what Obama administration attorneys said to the FISA court to even consider the application. If the claim was “financial ties” to Russia, then Obama knew he had no basis to use FISA at all.”

    Lots more good stuff in the article:

    Nedd Ludd

    March 5, 2017 at 8:07 pm

  10. Lion,
    I think a good sign is that Andy McCarthy seems to think that this is credible. Unlike Newsmax, he is actually a very reputable source. He wrote a pretty good NRO Corner article on it:


    March 5, 2017 at 8:11 pm

  11. Lion,
    Also, here is former Michael Mukasey (who I’m sure is not a Trump fan), who claims that Trump is “right” that a FISA surveillance order at the request of the Justice Department was in fact granted. I have no doubt in my mind that Obama knew about it.


    March 5, 2017 at 8:49 pm

  12. Money does not buy class. He could have bought it via philanthropy but is too greedy or ignorant to do so.


    March 5, 2017 at 9:38 pm

  13. Holy cow – Hillary was tweeting about the Trump Tower server on October 31. The resolution of this whole thing is going to be incredibly messy and I think our man TRUMP is going to come out on top!

    Two in the Bush

    March 5, 2017 at 10:13 pm

  14. Trump is once again destabilizing the Left narrative and putting an issue back on the map for his followers–this time the wonders of the all-seeing National Security state.

    Good for him.


    March 6, 2017 at 2:51 am

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: